PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH vs. NAGINA KOCHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/171/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01054875202325 January 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not maintainable. The primary reason for this decision was that the tax effect of Rs. 8,53,486/- was below the monetary limit stipulated in Circular No. 3 of 2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The Court explicitly stated that merely raising an audit objection does not render an appeal maintainable if it does not meet the prescribed financial threshold. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability due to the low tax effect. No other issues were decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh (the Revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order concerning Nagina Kochar (the assessee). The appeal was filed for the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The dispute arose from an order passed by an authority below the High Court. The tax effect in dispute was Rs. 8,53,486/-. The Revenue contended that an audit objection had been raised, which should make the appeal maintainable. The High Court heard the matter on 25.01.2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is maintainable when the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. The Revenue argued that the appeal should be maintainable because an audit objection had been raised, implying a significant issue warranting appellate scrutiny. The Revenue relied on the fact of the audit objection to justify the maintainability of the appeal, irrespective of the tax effect. The Assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:010815-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

(107)

ITA-171-2023 (O&M) Decided on : 25.01.2024 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

……Appellant (s)

Versus Nagina Kochar

……Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Ms.Pridhi Jaswinder Kaur, Advocate for the appellant (s)

(On her request, proceedings are being conducted by Hybrid Mode)

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)

The present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not maintainable, keeping in view Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes since the tax effect is only Rs.8,53,486/- which is below the limit. 2.

Merely because an averment has been made that audit objection has been raised would not make the appeal maintainable. 3.

In view of the above, the present appeal stands dismissed. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

(LAPITA BANERJI) January 25th, 2024

JUDGE sailesh

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether Reportable :

No SAILESH RANJAN 2024.01.30 10:54 I attest to the integrity/authenticity of this document/order

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →